EX Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the refusal/inaction of the respondent authorities for implementing the provisions of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (Members Pension) Act, 2007, the petitioner-association is filing this writ petition for appropriate relief.

(2.) The facts are hardly in dispute. The association under the name and style of "Ex-MDCs Welfare Association", constituted by the former Members of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council to promote and protect their welfare, is a society under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, 1983 vide the Certificate of Registration dated 9.1.2009, which is annexed at Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Admittedly, the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (the District Council) is one of the Autonomous District Councils of Meghalaya constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. On 2.4.2007, the District Council enacted the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (Members Pension) Act, 2007 ("the Act" for short), which received the assent of the Governor of Meghalaya on 11.7.2007 was published in the Gazette of Meghalaya on 2.4.2007. Sec. 1(b) of the Act provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the date of publication in the Gazette. Sec. 4 is crucial for our purpose, which is in the following terms:

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. R. Kar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that a combined reading of section 1(b) and section 4(1) of the Act will show that on the commencement of the Act, a vested right has accured to the Ex-MDCs of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council to receive pension once their term of Office is not less than five years whether continuous or not and that members of the petitioner-association cannot be denied of such right to pension. Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the Garo Hills District Council, frankly concedes the right of the Ex-MDCs of the District Council to receive the pension if they are otherwise eligible under the provisions of section 4(1), but contends that payments cannot be made as yet as the framing of the rules is yet to be completed due to suspension of the District Council, which is now run by the Administrator appointed by the Government of Meghalaya. He assures this court that the matter will be finalised once the District Council is revived. The stance taken by the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition is that the rules framed under section 7 of the Act are yet to be approved by the District Council and assented to by the Governor and that the same Government returned the draft rules for some correction vide the letter bearing Memo No.DCA/37/2009/12, dated 14.5.2009.